https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saucier_v._Katz
Katz brought an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against petitioner and other officials pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, alleging that defendants had violated his Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force to arrest him.
Katz brought an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against petitioner and other officials pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, alleging that defendants had violated his Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force to arrest him.
The Supreme Court in an opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy held that Saucier was entitled to qualified immunity.[2]
The Supreme Court held that qualified immunity analysis must proceed in two steps. A court must first ask whether "the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right." Then, if a constitutional right was violated, the court would go on to determine whether the constitutional right was "clearly established."[3]
Majority Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas; Souter (parts I, II)
The case focuses on "consent once removed," a theory espoused by some lower courts that acts as an exception to the search warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Under the doctrine, if a suspect to a crime opens the door for an undercover police officer, the suspect unknowingly is also allowing further police officers to enter without a warrant.
Majority Alito, joined by unanimous
There's more but who the fuck can be bothered by looking up all of her fucking attacks on the fifth and fourth amendments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saucier_v._Katz
Katz brought an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against petitioner and other officials pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, alleging that defendants had violated his Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force to arrest him.
The Supreme Court in an opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy held that Saucier was entitled to qualified immunity.[2]
The Supreme Court held that qualified immunity analysis must proceed in two steps. A court must first ask whether "the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right." Then, if a constitutional right was violated, the court would go on to determine whether the constitutional right was "clearly established."[3]
Majority Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas; Souter (parts I, II)
Concurrence Ginsburg, joined by Stevens, Breyer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Callahan
The case focuses on "consent once removed," a theory espoused by some lower courts that acts as an exception to the search warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Under the doctrine, if a suspect to a crime opens the door for an undercover police officer, the suspect unknowingly is also allowing further police officers to enter without a warrant.
Majority Alito, joined by unanimous
There's more but who the fuck can be bothered by looking up all of her fucking attacks on the fifth and fourth amendments.